Social Structure: Root Cause of Increase in Crime Rate - Essay Example

Social Structure: Root Cause Of Increase In Crime Rate Introduction It is usually believed that crime is a result of violent personality traits of a human being. However, a criminal can manifest his intentions only when social circumstances provide him the opportunity. The following criminological theories try to describe those social circumstances that increase and foster crime. Crime and the American Dream According to Merton, high rate of crimes is not an outcome of pathology or abnormal personalities but is rooted in its social and cultural conditioning of American dream, which values monetary success the most (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.191) . The first aspect of American Dream is the emphasis on the value of monetary success. This motivates people to become highly ambitious (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.192) . There is nothing wrong in being ambitious, however, to what extend a man can go to fulfill his ambitions matter a lot. The dark side of the American dream is that the importance of legitimate means to attain the social success is decreased compared to the importance of attaining the dream (Cullen & Agnew 2006,, p.192). According to Merton, it is this imbalance between the goal and the means to attain the goal that motivate people to take an illegal path (Cullen & Agnew 2006, 2001, p.192). Man is a social element. The strongest motivation behind man’s achievement is to get recognition from the society. In American society, people are evaluated on the basis of ‘what’ and ‘how much’ they have achieved rather than on the basis of who they are or how they are related to others in the social structure (Cullen and Agnew, 2006,, p.192). The ultimate measure of social worth being ‘success’ and ‘achievement,’ it puts pressure on people to achieve it at any cost (Cullen and Agnew, 2006, 2001, p.192). The mentality that “it’s not how you play the game but ; it’s whether you win or lose,” has led people to take illegal and anti-social paths to achievement as it guarantees success in quick and easy way (Cullen and Agnew, 2006, p.192) The second important aspect of American Dream is the importance given to individualism(Cullen and Agnew, 2006, p.192). As Andrew Hacker (1992) said, American society drives people to achieve success on their own and hence, in an attempt to get ahead in the race, ‘I’ becomes more important than ‘we’ (Cullen and Agnew, 2006, p.192). The second aspect leads to a third negative aspect of American dream which is underestimating and ignoring the importance of society and its rules. The mentality of “I have to win and so, I don’t care what happens to others”, leads to anti-social and criminal tendencies (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.192). These three aspects of American Dream, which are the part of economic institution, have become such strong part of the social mentality that it has decreased the importance of other institutions like education and family (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.194). This is evident from the fact that American society values, rewards and recognizes material achievement more than the achievement of intellectual and emotional nature, which are the foundation of education and family institutions respectively (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.196). As a result, all the other institutional functions in the society are carried out according to the needs, demands and schedules of economic institutions (Cullen & Agnew 2006,p.197). The American Dream does not recognize and reward the roles played by parents, spouse, students, scholars, children, citizens and public servants(Rosenfield & Messner, 2001, p.199). Not only that, but even the institution of the criminal justice system is shaped by the culture of American Dream (Cullen & Agnew 2006,p.200) . According to Rosenfield and Messner, the only thing that can reduce the crime rate and bring relief to people who are not a part of American Dream is the transformation in the fundamental social values and rethinking and restructuring of the American Dream (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.200). Hence, they say that ‘social reforms … that [seek] to widen access to legitimate opportunities for persons “locked out” of the American Dream [will not] bring relief from the crimes of those who are “locked in” the American Dream, exposed to its limitless imperatives in the absence of moderating social forces’ (Cullen & Agnew, 2006, p. 200). “Collective Efficacy and crime” Sampson, Raudenbush & Earls conducted a research in 1995 with 8,782 residents from 343 Chicago neighborhoods as participants (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.110). They presented a hypothesis that “when people in a neighborhood trusted and supported one another, they had a basis for binding together to control disorderly and criminal behavior (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.110). “Collective efficacy” implied that when the situation led people to indulgence in anti-social behavior, the bonding between people helped them to control the situation from going out of control and instead, solve the problem peacefully (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.110). However, most of the social disadvantages like financial inadequacy, lack of permanent homes, disharmonious family environment and large population of immigrants, when concentrated in one area, lead to lack of trust and bonding between people residing there. Hence, lack of “collective efficacy” leads to increase in crime rate and crime going out of control (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.110). Sampson et al. found that when the neighborhoods have common values and take responsibility to practice social control through informal social control activities like playgroup among children, willingness to intervene with activities conducive to crime like street corner ‘hanging” by teenager peer groups, confronting people who are exploitive and aggressive and control adult disputes, it leads to decrease in crime and establishment of peace and safety in the neighborhood (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.111). These rules and values of the neighborhood slowly gets initiated into the individuals and they begin following and respecting them. This leads to feeling of safety and peace among the individuals and creates effect on the social level. Hence, Sampson et al. say that they find similarity between individual and neighborhood efficacy as they both aim for safety and peace in the neighborhood (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.111).. However, the social bonding is possible only when the conditions of the neighborhood are consistent. With frequent movement from one place to another, the development of social ties become difficult and hence, the social organization gets disrupted (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.112). Moreover, people living in the neighborhood feel confident to intervene in case of social disruptions only when there is trust and bonding among them(Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.113). Sampson et al. found that the combination of informal social control methods and cohesion and trust were major factors in lower rates of violence (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.113). Hence, according to Sampson, Raudenbush and Earl (1997), ‘the social and organizational characteristics of neighborhoods explain variations in crime rates that are not solely attributable to the aggregated demographic characteristics of individuals.’ Routine Activity Theory. According to Routine activity theory proposed by Cohen and Felson (1979), there are certain circumstances and situations which are conducive to crime. The theory tries to prove that only one factor, i.e. the motivation of the criminal, is not enough for a crime to occur. What is also necessary is the opportunity which is provided by the combination of an attractive target and the absence of guardian (Cullen & Agnew, 2006, p.433). Even if one of the factors is missing, the chances of occurrence of crime gets minimized (Cullen & Agnew, 2006, p.434). The chances of opportunity increases with increase in routine activities as it provides more exposure of a victim to the potential criminal and hence transforms the intention of crime into action (Cullen & Agnew, 2006, p.434). When people indulge in legitimate routine activities, they expose themselves to evaluation by potential criminals. The potential criminals can gauge their value, their susceptibility to crime, the frequency with which they are physically exposed to opportunity and their strength to resist the attack(Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.435). The change in the lifestyle in the modern world have increased the chances of exposing oneself to the strangers. After the world war two, people in United States are carrying out their routine activities outside home more often (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.435). The chances of crime are less when the routine activities are carried outside home but in the premises of the community and with people who are known (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.436). However, the routine activities carried out outside the community premises make people vulnerable as they are not only exposed to potential criminals but also are without the guardian. In a large scale government survey of victimization in 1973-74, it was found that the personal larceny rate at the hands of strangers on street was 350 times more than at the hands of non-strangers at home (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.436). The changes in the job structure have made people more vulnerable to crime. It was found that between 1960 to 1070, there was 72% increase in park visits per capita, 144% increase in people working in plants getting three weeks’ vacation and 184% increase in travels to foreign countries (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.439). Not only that but development and importance of women’s position in the society after 1970, led to families with both spouses working and hence, increased their financial position. This allowed them to afford luxurious homes, frequent vacations outside home, expensive vehicles and indulgent lifestyle (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p.439). At the same time, different social developments that were meant to enhance the quality of life, have become a source of threat to life. For e.g., vehicle is meant to make commuting easy but also increases the chances of being victim of highway burglary. So, vacations, college enrolment, owning automobiles and new electronic goods provide opportunity to leave the safety of home and present at potential crime premises. This make people vulnerable to crime (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p. 442). Given the possibility of the presence of potential criminals everywhere, only a change in the lifestyle can decrease the crime rate in the society. Hence, Cohen and Felson (1979) argue that, “rather than assuming that predatory crime is simply an indicator of social breakdown, one might take it as a by produce of freedom and prosperity as they manifest themselves in the routine activities of everyday life” (Cullen & Agnew 2006, p. 442). References: Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (2006). Criminological theory: past to present : essential readings. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publications Read More